Why have international efforts to reconstruct public institutions in failed and collapsed states in Africa enjoyed such little success, particularly in establishing self-sustaining state institutions? This article from International Security examines the obstacles to successful reconstruction in the failed states of sub-Saharan Africa. It argues that three flawed assumptions underpin international efforts to rebuild failed state in Africa and recommends a greater reliance on indigenous reconstruction efforts.
The first flawed assumption underpinning international reconstruction efforts in Africa is that Western institutions can be successfully transferred to the continent. The second is that the diagnosis of failure is shared among donors and Africans. The third assumption is that international actors will be able to harness the material, military and symbolic resources necessary for long-term state reconstruction in Africa. Contrary to these assumptions, African states have obstinately resisted attempts at transformation, and many African political elites share neither donors’ diagnoses of failure nor their objectives. Moreover, donors lack the political will to sustain costly long-term efforts at state reconstruction.
More detailed findings relating to the flawed assumptions underpinning international reconstruction efforts in Africa include the following:
- The conceptual and capacity limitations of donors and the resistance to change of African governments have hampered the effectiveness of development aid.
- Democracy assistance in Africa has suffered from two main shortcomings. First, donors have paid little attention to informal political institutions. Secondly, donors have often failed to ensure that recipients meet the conditions for receiving aid.
- Donors typically see state failure as a systemic breakdown and reconstruction as a new form of social contracting. African elites, however, are more likely to view both breakdown and reconstruction as opportunities to maximise their political fortunes.
- Reconstruction efforts are frequently at odds with the institutional resilience of failed states. The public institutions of failed states may be deeply dysfunctional, but this does not mean that they cease to be useful for local elites.
- Reconstruction aid to Africa is typically short-lived, while international reconstruction efforts are often superficial and have limited capacity to bring lasting peace and security.
- Donors may lack the necessary degree of neutrality or moral capital for reconstruction. Mixed agendas among donors, torn between reconstruction imperatives and national interests, can undermine the local legitimacy of statebuilding efforts.
The flawed assumptions underpinning international reconstruction efforts point to the limits of what donors can realistically achieve in failed states in Africa. Indigenous reconstruction efforts in Uganda and Somaliland have fared better than their externally-sponsored counterparts. Extensive and intrusive external approaches to statebuilding might be as much part of the problem as of the solution. International actors should therefore recognise the potential for indigenous recovery in Africa. They should:
- Resist the temptation to always step in and offer comprehensive fixes in failed states, since this may instead stifle promising local initiatives
- Foster state formation – that is, interaction and bargaining processes between government and society – rather than constructing state structures as such
- Support local businesses and their associations in order to strengthen their leverage in bargaining with the government
- Target assistance to specific groups such as local media, conflict resolution bodies and human rights watchdogs that can contribute to promoting state accountability.
